An email came in today from some gal named Jennifer announcing that Slate.com was creating a new “law blog” called Convictions. Interesting, no? This new blog is supposed to be “commenting on legal issues ranging from Supreme Court arguments to political scandals and more.” That’s what Jennifer said.
So why did they call it Convictions? Beats me. But the better question is what it brings to the table that isn’t there already. Here’s the writers:
Slate writers like Jurisprudence columnists Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon, “Convictions” editor Phillip Carter of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, along with top litigators and law professors across the country…
Like?
Nancy Gertner would be pretty cool except she’s a sitting District Court judge up in Massachusetts, which means that there’s not a lot she cay say. But where are all these “top litigators?” All I see is another bunch of lawprofs, and let’s face facts, the blogosphere is seriously top heavy with lawprofs already. So much so that it’s getting increasingly difficult for them to find anything to write about. And former solicitor general Dellinger? Because we’re all arguing before SCOTUS next week anyway?
I also note that my buddy Orin Kerr at Volokh says he’s writing for this Slate thing too. But Orin, you post at Volokh. Is there a reason why you’re posting at Convictions instead? Has Gene been mean to you? Did you guys have a fight or something? Why, Orin, why?
Seriously, what is clear about Slate’s new blog is that there isn’t a single real “in-the–trenches” practitioner in the bunch. It’s a bunch of lawprofs and dilettantes, another high-and-mighty group cobbled together to give the final word on all things legal, but for the fact that not one of them faces life in the trenches. What is it about the lawprofs that make these media types get all hard excited?
There are already a few posts up at Convictions, and I started to read them and got bored. They just don’t say anything. They try to be cute, but go nowhere and illuminate nothing. I gather Slate saw raw meat in the blawgosphere and wanted to get its piece, but my guess is that Convictions will be linked all over the place (because we know how the boys love to link to the big names) and will bring absolutely nothing to the blawgosphere that wasn’t here already.
Sorry. I know that many people enjoy the lawprofs. I have nothing against them per se. It’s just that you can only watch the same movie 50 or 100 times before it’s a bore. This ivory tower adoration is out of control. I want to read Bennett and Pattis and Spencer and even Matlock. At least they actual do what they post about.
Doug Berman apparently learned of Convictions today too, though he’s feeling a little left out because they didn’t invite him to be part of the group. “Still,’ Doug writes, “this blog is clearly to be a must-read because of its participants.” Exactly. Not because of its substance, but because of its “must-read participants.” Ah, to bask in the glory of importance.
Sigh. What a waste.
By the way, they may call it a blog, but there’s no place to comment. They do have a reader discussion forum called “The Fray,” where you have to register and get a password. And, need I say it, there are advertisements.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
S:
all that glitters ain’t gold. i am happy to have my handful of readers and the lack of pressure. f*2k these clowns, i say. query: do you really care what the glitterati do?
Scott, I say we start our own. “Acquittals and Letting Criminals Go Free In The Real World”.
burdenofproof.org is available.
I like that “all that glitters” thing. Did you come up with that yourself?
First, glitterati to who? Do they help you any? Do you want to read more law revs or hear another theory from somebody who’s never had a client spit in their face or a judge fall asleep during trial? Who made them the glitterati?
Where are the real lawyers? Is there any real world in the blawgosphere?
Why aren’t there any group blogs by real lawyers?
Let’s start one.
Or maybe because there’s work to be done with people’s liberty at stake.
You know I’d read it, so that’s one.
I agree with Norm: f*2k these clowns! I can’t believe they have the nerve to go off and start their own blog — talk about arrogance!
Oh, wait, I’m one of the clowns. Never mind.
Oh sure, you and Norm come over here and start cursing all over the place. So if you’re this funny at Convictions (I’m hoping it’s just a bad pun, by the way), then I’ll read. But only you and Nancy. Not those other clowns. Well, maybe Marty, but no one else.
Norm,
My own suggestion was “Dissenting from Denial of Rehearing En Banc,” but they wanted something shorter.
Seriously, think “convictions” as in “courage of your convictions,” not “the jury trial ended in a conviction.”
In fact, I’ll offer to do the hosting and administrative gruntwork. Just get a couple more people and come up with a (shorter) snarky name.
Er, make that “Scott,” not “Norm.” Temporary brain freeze.
Also available:
defendingthosepeople.com
gettingyouoff.com
kickingprosecutorass.com
fv2kthoseclowns.com
So it is a bad pun.
You really want in, don’t you? Go on, admit it 😉
One more point — the blog will include David Feige, a former public defender in the Bronx: http://www.davidfeige.com/
So there.
Real world in the blawgosphere? Isn’t that an oxy-moron?
Orin:
As much as I love David (and I shilled his book more than he did), the Feigeman is now a writer & a “former” lawyer. I would love to see Scott or Jeralyn invited to write there.
I own criminaldefensecounsel.com and would be thrilled to donate it to a group blog, assuming I could at least try out to write on it.
Feige was once a trench-fighter (it doesn’t get much more real than the Bronx Defenders with my old friends Dan Arshack and Robin Steinberg), but then he went Jersey and now he’s gone Hollywood. I’m very happy for David, but there’s no street cred for anybody who hangs with Bochco at Spagos.
Lucky for the blawgosphere, my complete lack of a day job (thus far) allows me to “bask in the glory of importance” 24/7.
I “try to be cute” and succeed wildly. Today, my husband told me I was “too cute for David Brooks!” Not many people can make that claim.
Levels of illumination vary from wet candle to one of those aluminum tanning thingies on an extremely sunny day.
You be the judge: court-o-rama.org, the least dangerous blog!
A wee bit promotional. Okay, flagrant promotion, but you get a free pass. Court-o-rama has plenty to offer, interesting and, indeed, cute. Go check it out.
And sorry to hear about the lack of a day job. Because blogging is just such a great way to earn a living, provided you don’t like to eat.
Thank you for not deleting me!
Yes, shameless but also relevant to the discussion about blogs, cute and not-so-cute.
As for the day job, no worries! Sold the house, moved back to Star’s Hollow with the family, and I blog away. Nice work if you can get it! 🙂
Forget deleting. You’re on the blogroll now, so write good stuff and I’ll be watching. Nothing dangerous, of course.
Tocqueville called the judiciary “the least dangerous branch.”
Therefore, a blog about the courts must be “the least dangerous blog.”
That’s the story, we’re sticking to it.
Thank you so much for blogrolling us! We hope we do not disappoint!!! And if we do, just try to be distracted by the graphics or layout or something 🙂